Here Today... Gone To Hell!

The Left's Iraq Muddle
Yes, it is central to the fight against Islamic radicalism.

BY BOB KERREY
Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

At this year's graduation celebration at The New School in New York, Iranian lawyer, human-rights activist and Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi delivered our commencement address. This brave woman, who has been imprisoned for her criticism of the Iranian government, had many good and wise things to say to our graduates, which earned their applause.

But one applause line troubled me. Ms. Ebadi said: "Democracy cannot be imposed with military force."

What troubled me about this statement--a commonly heard criticism of U.S. involvement in Iraq--is that those who say such things seem to forget the good U.S. arms have done in imposing democracy on countries like Japan and Germany, or Bosnia more recently.





Let me restate the case for this Iraq war from the U.S. point of view. The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of complacency because all previous attacks were "over there." It was our nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the "head of the snake." But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated extraordinary capacity to reach our shores.
As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program.

No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq.

Some who have been critical of this effort from the beginning have consistently based their opposition on their preference for a dictator we can control or contain at a much lower cost. From the start they said the price tag for creating an environment where democracy could take root in Iraq would be high. Those critics can go to sleep at night knowing they were right.

The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.

Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn't you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.

American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear.

With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.

The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically "yes."

This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified--though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.





Those who argue that radical Islamic terrorism has arrived in Iraq because of the U.S.-led invasion are right. But they are right because radical Islam opposes democracy in Iraq. If our purpose had been to substitute a dictator who was more cooperative and supportive of the West, these groups wouldn't have lasted a week.
Finally, Jim Webb said something during his campaign for the Senate that should be emblazoned on the desks of all 535 members of Congress: You do not have to occupy a country in order to fight the terrorists who are inside it. Upon that truth I believe it is possible to build what doesn't exist today in Washington: a bipartisan strategy to deal with the long-term threat of terrorism.

The American people will need that consensus regardless of when, and under what circumstances, we withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. We must not allow terrorist sanctuaries to develop any place on earth. Whether these fighters are finding refuge in Syria, Iran, Pakistan or elsewhere, we cannot afford diplomatic or political excuses to prevent us from using military force to eliminate them.

Mr. Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska and member of the 9/11 Commission, is president of The New School.

 

hahaha.

Yea.

You're funny.  You contribute multiple posts to threads discussing the United States' role in the 911 attack and the CIA being the most dangerous organization in the world, yet you laugh at an article - not even remotely a right-wing Bush supporting article - written by a former prominent senator from the party that you support which questions some of the mainstream thinking and arguments from your party.  So much for discussing or valuing different opinions, eh?

Lie number one.


Edit #2: As always I have claimed the physicists and scientists debunk how the building fell. I have always stated that we are not being told the entire truth. This does not mean I think that our government was behind the attack. I've stated this a million times, but you still lie. Know why? Cause you are a fucking liar, that's why.


Lie number two.

Edit: Before you go off on a tangent, take a good look at what I wrote. Nothing I wrote said that agreed with the title of the thread. Which is why I'm calling you a liar. I did indeed post, but not in the way you'd like to make it out to be. Making up for Randall Flagg's absence I guess?


Not the article, but rather you.



I don't care who wrote it. It is utter hogwash.

Please read before responding with utter garbage.

So you call me a fucking liar, but admit that you did post multiple times in the thread?? Funny how that works.? Here is a link to only one of multiple threads in which you discuss the subject.? In fact, I think I remember you actually posting a video in one of the threads.

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=34613.0

Lets see, this one should be good.

The emphasized text is enough to make your name calling look childish.? Please read before calling me names.? It will save yourself the embarassment.

In other words, and the point I originally made, people create threads about wacky-ass subjects of which you seriously post and contribute.? I post an article - an article that bashes the administration - by a DEMOCRAT discussing the war, and you laugh at me?? Aren't you usually the person trying to cite to logical fallacies such as straw-man arguments or ad hominem arguments?? You do realize that your post is quintessential ad hominem?? I didn't even state whether I agreed with the article one way or another.? I do think it is interesting when prominent or formerly prominent people from political parties take viewpoints that do not tow the line.? Perhaps articles about President Carter calling the Bush Administration the "worst administration" is a better, more interesting topic to discuss?

Yet, instead of discussing anything substantive in it, you attack me and call the article hogwash?? Funny.?

You know, this ongoing war, contest, or whatever anyone wants to call it that you two have waged against each other for the better part of two threads now is getting a little silly.  :peace:

I certainly did. Because you are being dishonest with your intent. Thus you are a liar, and not a very good one at that.



Yea genius, just as I said, nowhere in those threads did I claim that our government was behind the attacks. Like you claimed I did. Another piece of shit lie.



Again, you are being dishonest with your intent council.



Haha....yea.



Haha....yea.



The problem with guys like you is that you think you are smarter than everybody else. You are not.


It's bullshit, all been said before, and all false.




I didn't attack you, I defended myself from your vicious fucked up lies, then called the article hogwash. Liar.



Blah...it's a cake walk. Randall Flagg once offered up his dick size as an argument.

You have not pointed out one thing in my post that was a lie.? Nothing.? You can keep trying if you wish.? Now to cover-up on your jump to conclusion, you are arguing that my intent was to say one thing while my post said another?? ?:hihi:

What you said in those threads, I cannot recall.? However, my post merely said that contributed to those threads, I do not say that you claimed our government was behind the attacks.? ?

Again, you are backpedaling.  My intent is pretty apparent from the text of the post.  I don't need to hide it.  My post had nothing to do with the content of your posts, but merely the threads you choose to take seriously.

Again, no substance.

At least you finally admit something.  Thanks.  I was beginning to think this endeavor was pointless.

I never said I was smarter than anyone.  I posted an article.  An article that I found interesting and maybe others will as well.  You post a smart-ass remark and expect me not to respond.  If anyone is being a smart-ass, it is you.  If you would simply read the article and contribute as you did in the aformentioned threads, there would be no need for this discussion.

First, what is false about it?  Second, you don't find it interesting that the article was posted by a prominent democrat?  I am sure you found it interesting when Republicans spoke out against the war, did you not? 

As I clearly established, and you are yet to persuasively refute, I did not state one lie in my post.  Thus, your argument that you were merely defending yourself is meritless.  All you do is attack; I am simply exposing it.

You're like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Really, it's not worth the bother. Anybody with a brain can read this one time and see it for what it is.

Pretend edit: I'll miss you while I'm on on vacation in NC.

Pretend edit 2: Not really.

I agree, the posts speak for themselves.  Have a nice vacation.

i read it all
i disagree completly.

This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified--though I believe it was. > this end sentence sums it all. incoherent.



there is an amazing article in the this month's Le Monde Diplomatique about "understanding terrorists".
And it ends with a powerful phrase roughly saying "terrorism is the only weapon left for the weaks in this hegemonic world".

Something, our governments, a lot of americans, 60% of french people, many people across the globe do not understand. terrorism is a just weapon.

the article talks about this book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dining-Terrorists-Meetings-Worlds-Militants/dp/140504716X
Dining with Terrorists: Meetings with the World's Most Wanted Militants
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/31ANPKY273L._AA240_.jpg)

* This book is a fascinating read if you really care about background to the so-called "war on terror". What always interested me was the motivations behind those who resort to extreme acts of violence to progress their ideas. Are they really just blowing themselves and others up because of a hatred of freedom and democracy, or are they driven to such extremes because of circumstances?   *

 

I generally disagree with this article.  First, he tries to compare Iraq with Japan and Germany.  OK...Germany was democratic before the war, so that certainly isn't a victory for the military imposition of democracy.  Japan had just seen its historic culture lead it to a devastating loss in war.  And it goes without saying that the two things being fought against, the Japanese military vs. terrorists and religious militants, are hardly the same.  Traditional warfare is a tactic of states, militaries are given their directives by a state, and can surrender when defeated.  Terrorism, on the other hand defies this logic completely.  They are generally stateless, using a tactic of weakness because to conduct traditional warfare would certainly mean defeat for them, and thus no state can be compelled to surrender.  So, these comparisons are weak, at best.

Second, democracy is like anything else, when it comes to ingraining it in a state's culture.  With some successes, and progress, democracy will be embraced.  With failures, especially early and ongoing failures, it will be disavowed.  After all, in Iraq, do many of the Sunni parties not disavow a coalition of which they are not a part?  When the loser in a democratic process decries the results, it is hardly positive for democracy, and there can be little doubt that this would have occurred with or without the US military in the country. 

Of course, Kerrey also discusses the need to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries, wherever they can be found, and this is an admirable sentiment.  But, again, terrorists are not a foreign state's army.  They're not easily identifiable, first of all, and they have a seemingly unlimited base of recruitment.  Bomb the terrorists until kingdom come, and we will not accomplish the goal of eliminating terrorism. 

1) democracy is not a prerequisite to freedom. look around you.
2) terrorists ... crystallization of the issue, washing away the real causes in the name of the "war of terror".

Which do you think it is?  I believe no matter how bad things are, flying a plane into a building full of civilians or blowing up a crowded market place isn't progressing your ideas or going to make your circumstances better.  Yes, it will get you attention, but its what we call "bad attention".

Just look at the civil rights movement in America.  not a single rock thrown, not a single suicide bomb and they accomplished what they had set out to do, peacefully.  They got "good" attention and sympathy from other Americans as well as the world.

I agree.  I think I need to clarify my above statement.  When democracy is successful, it is embraced, and becomes ingrained in culture.  I didn't mean to say that when the military is successful in imposing democracy, that this will occur. 

I meant this as a reference to the many states which have transitioned to democracy, only to see corrupt leadership, economic collapse, and other failures.  In an established democracy, we would say that the leader is a bad one, and we look forward to replacing him or her.  In a new democracy, where there isn't a true democratic culture, you commonly see a population lash out at democracy itself, which is why there are many counter-transitions back to authoritarianism.

i see where you're going, but
please.

palestinians could march in peace and make blogs for years, they will still ive in prison on their own soil.
weaks all over the world can march and bring sympathy all along, they will still be stepped upon.

we have babies dying from hunger on our tv screen and we don't do shit to change this world, sympathy won't solve anything.

we have installed a worldwide violent system (i am talking about this subtle vicious violence called Greed), these people cannot get a voice without violence.

That's all i am saying.

More over this general thoughts.
What i wanted to point out, is that, unlike what our right wing governements tell us, these terrorists, al-quaeda, Farcs, all over the world, they don't hate *us*. They don't hate democracy and freedom. They don't hate our big breasted blond girls on tv or our gays holding hands in the street. There is no civilization clash.

They are fighting. They are fighting, because we - the riches - have stand and worked for years to humiliate 70% of the world population.

Terrorism is just the sick, twisted, deranged, voice of the poors and the weak. Of our system. Some die in silence, some fight. I dont escuse it, i don't like the way they do it, but i, sincerely, understand it.

Think otherwise as you wish. this is how i see it.

i wasn't "going anywhere with this" to be honest - i really was asking for your opinion on the matter....

secondly, you say the weak can mobilize and have peaceful demonstrations and still be stepped on but thats just not always the case.  you might want it to be (why i dont' know) but you can't discount that peaceful movements in the past have had AMAZING results.  civil rights in america, india, the womens suffrage movement.  look at Tiamenen square in China (i butchered the spelling of that i'm sure hehe).

don't tell me that the weak have absolutely NO voice and their ONLY option is to blow themselves up to be heard.  a dead man can't really talk now can he?

no voice without violence?  thats just absurd and i hope you know it.  today the world is even more communicative than it was when MLK was marching.  any douchebag with a keyboard and a high speed connection has a voice...   its up to them to mobilize and make changes.

aren't you the one who said violence doesn't solve anything!?!?!

What percent of Al-Qaeda's ranks are poor and uneducated?  And what are their plans for the eradication of global poverty?

Good point - I wouldn't exactly call Ben Laden "poor and uneducated" either.  He is far from both.

I also don't know how Wat-ever can say there isn't a culture clash - look at the way women are treated and how they are told to dress in some arab countries as well as the huge intolerance of other religions.

I can sympathize with your point, in that world capitalism certainly isn't without its victims, and if someone has to fight to make change happen in some horrible place, then I'm not one to say they shouldn't.  Sometimes change is bloody.

But since we are talking about Al-Qaeda, I think the argument here is probably not the best one.  Al-Qaeda, which fights against some Arab regimes just as it does against Western interests, is not attempting to better the lives of the Middle Eastern poor and downtrodden.  That's not to say they don't attract members from the poor and downtrodden, but their basic goal isn't improved quality of life for Muslims.   

1st,? i agree with you, weaks in our countries sometimes can acheive something. there is hope.

then:

. Our analysis always cluster these terrorists groups into a closed bubble. (You are refering to Al-quaeda alone)
We reduce the message, the sense of this modern crisis to the terrorist group only. It goes back that what i always say: we reduce the issue to make it simple and mis-inform.
I say the poors, the weaks > you say al-quaeda is not poor.
you just brush them away to focus on the terrorist group alone.

I agree with you guys when you say Al-quaeda clearly said they were fighting the *west* ... but google for the original classic ben laden's speeches : he states 2 points
- palestine
- west presence in the gulf (against our *interests*)

I said the poors and weaks around the world.
The book i linked to, through multiple interviews of *terrorists* clearly shows that, all around the world, when you ask (and he does in a very sincere way, he blends in to ensure truthful interviews) these evil guys - any terrorist group -, they tell you they are using violence against the violence of the oppressors.

If we want to focus on Al-quaeda, which would be the worst organ, no matter how dumb ben laden is (and he is, so the people who met him said), no matter how dumb and useless and dangerous their actions are, they are still the brutal phenomenon that comes from the tragic truth : the rich countries are raping the poors.

Imagine yourself in the USA, with Foreigners companies litteraly stealing your ressources, paying 1% of the price they should pay. Foreign countries installing military bases across your land. imagine that. imagine yourself poor, starving, and uneducated. imagine yourself hearing about a group of guys that *can kill* the oppressors? i can assure you that you would fight, and blow up yourself. truth.


i think that, just like the kids dying from hunger in africa, terrorism is just a consequence of our global worldwide system.
When we hear about kids dying from hunger, we give money and hope the problem will go away - while pumping their gas and stealing their sulfure and gold-
When we face terrorism, we un-link them from their *message* - they have, in the mouth of cnn, no message or the message we want them to have -, and we just want to destroy them, not seeing where they come from.

Recent studies (cf. The Looming Tower) have shown that the al-quaeda recruits are either criminals already or very very poor.
what does that tell you? That this whole civilization hate our freedom and plastic boobs?

GeorgeSteele > the situation of women there? - So you think we can bring the truth ?
they put a veil on women.
why don't we show them tapes of *I want a famous face* on mtv, why don't we show them our women in our ads, naked to sell products? or the amazing porn industry we have?
- no critics here, just :
there is a difference betwee fighting for human rights across the world, and looking at foreigners as savages with wierdos culture.

hope i was clear, it's a complicated topic to discuss ...

 :peace:


ps: gonna go watch the champions' league final game , milan-liverpool, now  :peace:

Before this thread gets hijacked by those who attack others who do not agree with them.........

This was a great article Berkely Riot. I think that correctly sums up a lot of whhere we've been and what the future may hold for Iraq.

Madrid, London, New York - all are from Al-Q-Tips's greatest hits.? For us to understand the worst attacks in the last few years, we should focus on the group responsible.


I can't say for sure unless I'm in that predicament, but I'd like to think that I would fall into the 99.999999999%+ of the poor that don't kill innocents or blow themselves up.


I've seen other studies [Mark Sagerman?] that indicate about 75% of Al-Queda recruits are middle-class and educated.? I haven't seen a truly scientific study, so I guess the truth is somewhere in between.? In either case, there seems to be much more going on than sticking it to the Man.


One is exploitation ($$ for dignity); the other is coercion (do it or die).? Both are bad.? One is worse.


Peace to you too brother.? Maybe one day all the terrorists will abandon their violent acts and approach us in peaceful dialogue.? And then we can kill them all at once because they'd never see it coming.? ?;D


Inzhagi!? 1-0 Milan...

what you give is what you get. it works both ways.

they supposedly (lets just say that incase conspiracy theories are right) attack one of the biggest countries in the world, america. and moan that they are now having there asses kicked and "being oppressed", good they are being oppressed, fuckers coming over blowing my country up to just because we helped get rid of the dictator of iraq.

1st, it's not YOUR country.

2nd, you either :
have no clue what you're talking about,
don't understand anything about the world around you,
are stoopid,
are a troll,

i hope the 4th, because every little thing you said is wrong. even the simple fact about *your* own country. can't even get that straight.

That could very well be true, but I'm not totally convinced.  I admit, I've contributed my fair share of ridicule for Bush's simplistic "they hate freedom" explanations.  But, conversely, is it any less incomplete to say that so long as these guys have a Volvo, HDTV on a plasma screen, a comfortable 3-bedroom house with 1 1/2 bathrooms, a dental plan, etc, etc, they would not react violently if their society became one where:

 - women can choose between covering their face with a veil or just wearing a veil and nothing else;
 - the local theatre featured Debbie does Dubai and had a Theo van Gogh night;
 - Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses 2 - Satan Sings the Blues; or
 - a local artist depicted a painting of Mohammed surrounded by elephant dung (remember the NY controversy with the Virgin Mary?)

Sorry for the bad jokes, but you understand.  A multi-cultural Western type society is where they see Iraq headed if the US has it's way.  So I think the drive to preserve a pure Islamic society based on Sharia law rather than a shit standard of living is what motivates them more.

i see. have a point,

nevertheless we are always, and i guess it's natural, thinking everything relatively to our "norms" and culture.

the veil? there is more than just a veil. it's a deep cultural thing.
it's hard to break down cultural rules.
People agree on these rules. In these countries, if you're nto rich and exposed to the western references, the veil, the limitation of sacrilegeous expression, are not something you question. they are natural for you.
do you see my point?
It's like in our countries .... we dont question that we cannot walk naked in our countries,  communism = evil in the usa,  we don't question free-trade or growth .....

the veil for ex,
it's an issue that goes beyond religion. The stand of women in society. i can assure it's no better in ours.
we are talking about general issues (freedom of expression and women's situation) that are also questionnable in our countries, and reducing these issues to their religion ....

also, we are focusing on very specific places
take Jordan, take Tunisia, women dont wear veils. I hear the veil was BANNED in Tunisia ... and it's a muslim country i'd say.


the big point is, IMO, that we're not better than them. we're not as free as we think we are.
When i hear a fat tv brainwashed consumerism-slave say that we are bringing *freedom* there : i laugh.


:)

Also,

about terrorists, al-quaeda, world-domination , civ. clash ...

i was reading that article - amazing http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2006/04/LEMOINE/13332 - i'm sorry it's iin french -

but it's a long article that talks about the FARC in columbia.

basically it's a mirror situation of what we have somewhere else with *terrorism* - hamas, palestine, irak ... -

but, it's far away, we don't that much of info, we're that sentimentaly tied to the issue ...

and it's a great way to look at these kind of power struggles with a fresh look ... and i can assure, you will really think out these issues in a different way after that... nothing is black and white anymore. who's the terrorist?

PEACe

I don't see what the problem is with him saying this.  We all, to some extent, take possession of our countries.


I agree about norms, which is why the neo-cons' plan to democratize the middle east is so laughable.

But I disagree about the women issue.  I'm not arguing that women are treated fairly in ANY society...even where they have freedoms, there are still de facto differences in pay for the same work.  That said, there's a BIG difference between how women are treated in Western societies and in many Middle Eastern/Muslim countries.  The Taliban rule of Afghanistan is an extreme example, but it DID exist, and we all know how women were treated there.  And, unfortunately, there are places where, while perhaps less strict about some issues, you still see women being beaten or killed...because they were raped!  Or, as was the case in another thread around here recently, because they were dating someone from a different sect.  It has nothing to do with veils, in my opinion.  If they want to wear them, because of religious reasons, then I have absolutely no problem with that.  After all, it took Christianity 2000 years to realize that women's subservient place, as shown in the Bible, isn't how the world should work, in reality.  So, by that timeline, I guess we can see how Muslim women are doing in about 600 years.

Regarding the idea that we're better than them...well, I don't think I'm better than anybody, and I CERTAINLY don't think everyone needs to drop their culture and government, to set up a mini-America, in order to be better than they are. 


You should be sorry.  When will you French learn that ENGLISH is the official language?!

Kidding of course. 

i live here, i am classed as a person who legally lives here, my family dont come from immigrants as our family history has been traced, i dont have any french or anything like that in me, i am english through n through, im proud of being english and i love my country, just not the way it is run or is being destroyed by several groups who dislike it.

i do understand the world around me.

lets get some facts straight about these islamic terrorists.

in the 1980s the soviet union was at war in afghanistan, american being in a cold war wanted to avoid conflict, so they funded and trained the future terrorist leaders to fight the soviets for them, the soviets are beaten and they now take over afghanistan.

So their groups influence spreads with its use of religious brainwashing and force.

Now, like i said, because conspiracy theories suggest america constructed 9/11, if we assume the facts we  are told are the truth, that the terrorists did infact attack one of the biggest and most powerful countries in the world, one run by what some people would say a "cowboy" they are gonna get the same shit back to them, whether alternative motives for the oil pipeline in afganistan comes into equation, they gave the americans a reason to get in there coutnry and kick there arse back to the caves.

So this shit with Saddam in iraq brings another ar about, that the british people DIDNT want, however our government goes to war anyway.

So the terrorists then go all jihad on england and attack us in london in 2005 because our country fought over there, even though it was over the news our people did not want this, they attack our people.

Now they infiltrate our country, they preach in mosques and brainwash young muslim children, and white people who converted to it, to help attack this country.

So i think its good they are being oppressed and having the shit blown out of there country because they would be running wild doing twice as much to MY country as they already are doing.

So before trying to call me a troll and telling me i dont know my facts, why dont you learn some facts you ignorant fuckingasshole.

 : ok:

thank you mr. "100% pure english no immigrant blood in your vein", that was an entertaining piece.
you can go back to your trailer with david beckham and your Fred Perry polos ;)

i'll stay an ignorant fuckin asshole .

PEACE

a reply of someone who cant think of a good reply.

they would be angry, they might even beat up some chicks who were doing that stuff or burn down some movie theaters, but if they knew they would be punished, put in jail for doing so and lose their comfy leather sofas, cable tvs and fancy cars - yeah, i think they would think twice about it.  I definitely don't think they'd be leaving home and fighting a guerilla war or blowing themselves up in Sabaros.

i don't know, its a tough call.  its definitely a different culture for sure - nobody will argue that.  but i think the less you have the more you likely you are to not give a shit about yourself.  i'd like to see an economy restored in iraq and see what happens

alot of the homeless in england n america dont blow themselves up, these people are just brainwashed into it by the factions in there areas.

 ^ Yeh, mrlee, good reply. I thought that the David Beckham comment was very good.

not really. hes trying to say im a chav.

Which is far from the case.
or else id be typing like this "fukin, tw@ mayt, tlk lyk dis cus duno ow 2 type"

ok, sorry about the personal attacks :( , lets go back on topic

That's hilarious. Topic of the thread aside; The idea that anyone living in Britain would believe that they're of some pure, untainted ethnic stock is laughable. Britain is Europe's village bicycle, everyone's had a go. The English are a mongrel race, how can you be a pure mongrel?

Yeh, there's the Viking settlement in York and many Roman ruins all over the place. I remember sitting in a Roman ampitheatre in some little village (York again, perhaps)!

scientific facts aside, my entire point in that section  is that i have every right to reffer to the england as my country, my home, my land, whatever.

 See, in Australia I cannot call my country, my land beacause Australia really belongs to the Aboriginal people. I consider myself to be a guest in the country. Today we are actually celebrating the 30year? anniversary of Aboriginal people being classed as 'citizens' so that they could vote and have a say in the affairs of their country.

yeah i think thats lame, cause the settlers from the UK back in whatever year wrecked ther way of life for a time, same goes to the native indians in america....

Not to mention the native indians in India.

yeah, im glad england gave that country back its own freedom from our rule democratically, rather than through war.

After 44 years of living under an imposed Polish Communist totalitarian government, Poland returned to full indepence and democratic rule through a bloodless Solidarity revolution in 1989.

stolat :

not for the best > http://mondediplo.com/2007/04/01poland   ( a translation of the original article http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2007/04/RAMONET/14597 by Ignacio Ramonet)

;)

oh PUH-LEASE!!!! Poland is 10,000,000 times better now that it is an independent/democratic country.  your article is very interesting and if they do indeed go on a commi witch hunt it'll be pretty f'ed up, but to suggest "not for the best" just shows how ridiculous you can be sometimes.

Oh, thanks for summing that up - I didnt bother reading the article because I am able to talk face to face with people who were there at the time.

We had to send so many food packages and warm clothes to Poland in the 80s!!

ahah ;) didnt say it's worst

the article is interesting.  that's all.

so you're interested in poland ... but you dont read article from serious sources about it ? .... okay ......

Interested in Poland! It's in my blood!

If I have any questions, I can ask the original activists in the Solidarity movement. And I have seen smuggled out film from the time.

Hence, I did not like your 'not for the better' comment as my family history is very closely linked to the Solidarity movement.

Furthermore, I have made the decision that I will not visit any link unless the poster gives clear indication of the source and content contained therein.

the source was in the url : monde diplomatique > check on google/wiki, it's one of the most serious and intelligent newspaper in the world .... very leftist tho.

i dont question your family ties and the Solidarity anti-communist movement.

read the article, it's interesting.

I think it was just called the 'Solidarity' movement.
Means something completely different to what you are inferring.

Make that 40years of being 'allowed' to vote, enter cities and having basic human rights.
Had a great reconciliation morning tea in the staffroom room today - Wattle seed scones with quandong jam and lemon myrtle tea! Good one nungas!
You see, the Australian government refuses to apologise for the genocide of the Aboriginal people in Australia, yet lots of white people are aware of how the enitre race was systematically close to being wiped out - it was government policy brought over from England!